I wonder why algebraic notation?

Algebraic notation is dry, tasteless and nondescriptive. Reading it is like reading math

problems in base two - I have to translate it. Traditional notation enables me to visualize the game. When black plays P-K5, I can see that in my mind. When black plays e5-e4, I have to translate the "e" to a "K" and remember that the pawn isn't moving backwards. I would like to see such Alps

Having played blindfold chess using English Descriptive, and then years later using Algebraic, I marvel that I was able to see the board using descriptive. The clear and stable grid of algebraic notation is vastly more concrete for playing chess in one's head. The constant flipping of the board, and realizing that my pawn on K6 stands on the same square as my opponent's pawn on K3 requires constant distracting adjustments.

I love it when people are so far off that they're not even wrong. Computer programs don't use algebraic notation. They use bit maps which are far easier to manipulate with logical operators. PGN is a notation that was designed to be usable by both computers adn human beings. But that notation is only used for input and output so human beings can figure out what the computer is doing easily. Internally, the computer translates the move to bitmap representations of piece positions. 

And descriptive is a poor solution for human beings. If you are playing blindfold chess, purely using notation, having to continually manipulate the board in your head to figure out the position is a pain. And this is necessary because each square has multiple names. Is the King's Rook 3 square vacant? You have no way to even answer that question if you don't know if it is white or black asking the question. Having a naming convention that uniquely identifies each square on the board in a single way is far superior and involves far less mental energy. 

There is a reason algebraic notation rules the chess world, and it's not because of computers. All but English speaking countries made the switch to algebraic long before computer chess was more than an AI researcher hobby. 

I can appreciate that people who do not really know the chess board well would have a problem with algebraic notation. But the lack of ambiguity in algebraic notation makes it far superior to descriptive for nearly every task.  Yes, it lacks poetry. But the poetry is in the moves, not in the naming of them. 

What manipulations did you have in mind (so to speak)?

When I hear or read "1.P-K4 P-K4", for example, I can picture the pawns moving from their original squares to the new squares. This works equally well if I am playing white or black and imagining looking at the board from either side. I don't need to keep rotating the board as moves are made. The squares don't even need to have names - they're just where they are! The reason I find this fairly natural is that I learned chess in the early 70s when  notation was still descriptive in the UK.

Of course, I use algebraic now because all the books and media use that - but it still doesn't feel quite as natural as descriptive, and when I am picturing the board from black's side I have to consciously 'translate' each square into the correct algebraic coordinates. (Fortunately, this seems to be getting easier, albeit very gradually.)

Having to keep in mind that KB3 is also the other player's KB6 means you have to continually reframe the board into two different ways of naming each square.  That is absolutely not nearly as efficient as having one name for each square. 

In descriptive notation, what color is KB4 square? 

You can't answer that question, because you don't know which KB4 is being asked about!

I appreciate what you are saying, but for people who know descriptive it really isn't a problem.

When people talk about "the 7th rank", you can picture what they mean, even though there are in fact two 7th ranks. It's that kind of non-issue.

And the point I'm making is that for the vast majority of people who have never used, or rarely use, descriptive, the very fact that squares are having multiple names creates complexity but brings no advantage. 

I can use either, but much prefer algebraic. Where each square has only 1 name, instead of the squares changing their names, depending on whose move it happens to be. That's just annoying. And, as it happenns, unneccesary.

Also helps when discussuing a position. As in: In this variation, the adavantage usually goes to the player who can control the f5 square. In, descrpitive, that translates: the player who can control the king-bishop 5 square (from whites perspective.) Wince.

Or when both your rooks (or knights) can move to the same square. Rae1 is simple. R(QR1)-K1 is not. But, whatever works for you, stick with it.

People will think best in whatever way they have learned - which these days is algebraic. I have no argument with that. I was just curious to know what manipulations of the board you think are necessary when dealing with descriptive, when others need to do no such manipulation.

Is it really necessary to name the squares at all? Yes, you could name the square that e.g. white's move to KB6 gives directions to, but where it is on the board is pretty obvious once you've put the piece there, either in reality or in your mind's eye.

The problem with reasoning with people who are unreasonable is that the people are unreasonable.

Whether it is really a problem would depend on your aims, wouldn't it? 

Is necessary to name the squares? Well, of course not. But millions of very good chess players have found it exceedingly useful. When a listening to Kasparov lecture about one of his games, he seems to find it necessary to point out the weakness of the f7 square in a particular position. Which is much more convinient than pointing out the weakness of the black square 3 from the right and 2 from the back of the board from white's perspective. 

And of course, "the black square 3 from the right and 2 from the back of the board from white's perspective" is a description of the square and thus in some sense a name, but 'f7' is way easier to say and interpret. 

True, true.

Not so, FirebrandX. I like descriptive (inasmuch as that's what I grew up with, and my brain is still happy working with it), but I think algebraic is absolutely fine too. I even agree it's simpler and more logical - especially to those who grew up with it. I certainly don't think it is cold-hearted nonsense.

The grid is no more required for algebraic notation than the original piece location is for descriptive. Do you need to be told where the 4th square is either?

Neither system is particularly complex. I learned descriptive forty years ago, and then fifteen years ago made the switch. Learning to think in algebraic was easy because I used a board that had no printing around the edges, and I spent an hour or so per day for several weeks working through a chess book written in algebraic (Soltis, Pawn Structure Chess, as I recall).

Nonetheless, as paulgottlieb notes, the mind's internal dialogue sometimes reverts. Occasionally, I will erroneously refer to b5 as "bishop five" (it is queen's knight four or five, depended on your perspective). This error, when vocalized, confuses third grade children whom I coach.

There are many excellent books in descriptive, and some of those old books that have been converted have been converted badly. If you are serious about chess study, it behooves you to learn descriptive. But, it makes no sense to claim that it is more logical or easier to visualize unless you are suffering dementia. 

Algebraic notation is something that just makes sense. The descriptive notation always seemed unnatural to me. Personally, I prefer figurine but of course you can't pencil those in very easy when you're at the board.

Any system that's radically different from the one you learned in your 'formative years' is bound to seem somewhat unnatural. The fact that it seems unnatural, however, is a function of the beholder's mind and does not by itself prove that it is an inferior system. Of course, it is inferior to those for whom it seems unnatural, but that is more a matter of preference. The system may or may not be objectively inferior (e.g. because it is less logical or more complicated) but practically that is less important than how easy or natural a person actually finds it to use. Ziryab, it may be easier to visualize for some, not necessarily demented, people. Obviously, these days people grow up with algebraic in an algebraic chess world so that is subjectively the better system (and maybe objectively too!). 

Blimey, what a lot of words over such a trivial topic!

ambiguous moves are more frequent in descriptive notation